In the professional world, achieving exceptional image quality is paramount. While budget-friendly cinema cameras boast impressive specifications, Hollywood consistently opts for high-end options like the ARRI Alexa 35. This raises the question: why is there such a significant investment in these top-tier cameras?
Coming to you from Sareesh Sudhakaran wolfcrow, this insightful video looks at the rationale behind Hollywood's preference for expensive cinema cameras. Sharma emphasizes that the key factor lies in "visible image quality." While affordable mirrorless cameras may offer high resolutions and dynamic range, their limitations become evident on larger screens and in professional post-production environments. The video draws a comparison to microwave dinners, highlighting that the specifications on paper don't always translate to real-world performance.
Sudhakaran argues that the difference between an Alexa and cameras under $10,000 is stark. He recounts his experience color grading a fashion film on a large screen, where he discovered visual artifacts that were invisible on smaller displays. These artifacts, including limitations in color reproduction and tonal gradation, become glaringly obvious in a cinematic context. Sharma emphasizes that cheaper sensors struggle to capture the nuances of color and texture, resulting in an overall lack of visual fidelity.
Beyond color and texture, motion handling is another critical aspect where high-end cameras excel. Sudhakaran points out the prevalence of motion issues and rolling shutter artifacts in cheaper cameras, which can significantly detract from the cinematic experience. He acknowledges that filmmakers can work around these limitations to some extent, but achieving truly professional results often requires the superior motion capabilities of high-end cameras.
Sudhakaran further explores the importance of camera construction and thermal management. High-end cameras are built with precision and durability, ensuring reliable performance in demanding production environments. Additionally, their robust cooling systems prevent overheating and maintain optimal sensor performance, contributing to consistent image quality throughout extended shoots. Check out the video above for the full rundown.
Recently I watched "Bait" (2019) and "Enys Men" (2022) by Mark Jenkin, both filmed with an old 16mm Bolex camera, and enjoyed them far more than any Hollywood product in recent years. So there.
Is that because the Bolex is good enough? Or is because the cinematography, regardless of gear, was done well and the stories were good? I haven't seen those films, but I bet in the right hands, a 16mm film is capable. Sure there are images it can't capture, but what it can do with a good cinematographer will be good.
Compared with an Alexa, Jenkin's Bolex is an extremely limited camera. Nevertheless, "Bait" and "Enys Men" - grainy and dirty as they are - are beautiful in their own way. I wanted to point out that there are many ways to make great films. Hollywood makes films for money and is aggressive and detrimental in its agenda, and that is its crippling limitation.
Sorry, but so dumb. Here is the truth. Projected images are graded, optimized and never compressed for professional projection technology. These images are much higher quality than non-projected images. All non-projected images are down graded to a generic compressed average that looks okay on all the different devices. Your Netflix show must look sort-of-okay on very different devices like an iPhone 15 pro retina, a 4 year old cheap amazon tablet, a HP business laptop or a Sony TV set to "sports" mode. All films are graded on the same 32" video monitors - the editors and colorists are seeing the total raw image, it's the grade and the display device that varies. (Also a $100 million picture has much better lighting than a cheap Indie.)
A $100 million picture doesn't necessarily have a "much better lighting" than a cheap Indie. Much more expensive equipment, yes.
Today theaters largely use digitally downloaded films following the DCI specifications. That requires a minimum bitrate of 500Mb/s and Motion JPEG2000 compression. So yeah, compression, but nothing like the low bitrates and IPB compression you see in consumer video.
Modern streaming is not one size fits all. Netflix will have multiple separate encodings based on the capabilities of your hardware, and you won't get anything more than that. Bandwidth costs, after all. Well before streaming, even YouTube did this, creating multiple compressed versions separately encoded and downrezzed from your uploaded master.